The Thirteenth Tribe

Interesting Popularization of Some Scholarly Opinion Koestler wrote an intriguing, popularized account in this book of the theory that many of today's Jews (mostly those of Eastern European descent) are of non-Semitic origin. Essentially the book recounts the tale of the Khazars, a middle Asian Turkic tribe or tribal group which settled in the southern steppes of what is today's Russia, during the seventh and eighth centuries, and adopted Judaism (in reaction to the conflicting demands of nearby 'great powers' espousing Christianity and Islam) and concludes that this event, which seems to be historically documented, explains the significant presence of Jews in Eastern Europe at the end of the Middle Ages (since extant records do not show them arriving from the Mediterranean world in ancient times). This theory is a quite rational one though it poses problems for Orthodox Jewry since the premise of the faith depends so much (though not exclusively) on the historical link to Abraham, a Semite. Complicating the matter is the suspicion that the Khazar conversion may not have been a 'kosher' one, thereby raising further questions re: what it means to be a Jew. Thus Orthodox Jews have not been quick to embrace the Khazar thesis and others tend to shy away from it for this and other reasons. Particularproblems arise when anti-semites (defined as those hostile to Judaism andJews) seize on the thesis to discredit the claims of modern Judaism. Suchindividuals challenge Israel's right to exist as a state in the Middle Easttoday on this basis, since its majority population is of Europeanextraction. Or they question Judaism's right to claim the mantle of thebible (suggesting that the modern Jew has no more special claim on it, andperhaps a lesser one, than the modern Christian). All this is just wrong orsilly. Certainly modern Jews are a mixture of many different geneticinfluences. And if the Khazars did contribute substantially to the modernJewish gene pool, they didn't do so exclusively. There are clear geneticmarkers which connect modern Jews (Orthodox and otherwise) to a singlesource which spans both the Eastern European and Sephardic Jewish heritages,suggesting that the Khazar influence was limited at best. And if thereweren't, so what? The record shows there were Semitic Jews (fromConstantinople and Persia) living among the Khazars before and after theconversion and no one knows what method the conversion may have taken in anycase, whether rabbincally sanctioned at the outset or only after the fact ornot at all. Just as people from all pagan backgrounds quite legitimatelyenrolled in the Christian and Muslim folds from ancient times going forward,so there is no reason to deny the Judaism of Jews whose ancestors may havebeen non-Semites who embraced the religion of Abraham and Moses. I've seensome rather vituperative attacks on Jews claiming support from the fact thatthey, the Jews, stem from a putative race of Khazar barbarians who weredestructive rather than constructive and essentially parasitic on theEuropean communities and groups they came into contact with in EasternEurope. This is silly where it is not just insidious. Like the Khazars,other European groups came from middle Asia at different historical timesand intermixed with many different groups. If some adopted Chirstianitywhile others chose Judaism, there is yet no reason to suggest that the onegroup was better than the other. In fact the historical record shows thatwhile the Khazars were nomadic tribesmen in Byzantine times they were nobetter or worse than these more 'civilized' Christian peoples in terms oftheir dealings with friends and enemies. Yes, the Khazar empire blew awaywithout leaving a trace -- unless one seeks and finds that trace in theEuropean mores and culture of the Jews coming out of that region (big furhats and long coats, for instance, may have been a carry-over from thenomadic Khazar horsemen). However, the record, such as it is, also suggeststhat the Khazars were unusually tolerant and enlightened 'conquerors' whotreated their subject peoples with unusual mildness. In fact, this verymildness may have been the source of their downfall since they did notruthlessly suppress their enemies or enforce any sort of cultural hegemonywhich might have created a unified state capable of withstanding theRussians who eventually overran them. And the Khazars' successors in thesteppes proved to be much more unpleasant: first the Pecheneg horsemen, whowere much more brutal and benighted, and then the Mongols about whom littlemore need be said. As to Koestler's book, it does present a very simplifiedversion of all this, largely derived from the Scholar, D. M. Dunlop ofColumbia University who wrote The History of the Jewish Khazars Koestler appears to have taken most of his information from this source though inmany cases he over-simplified or simply got his facts wrong. If you'reinterested in the Khazar thesis I'd suggest you check out Dunlop's bookalthough Koestler's is an easier read and adds to the case Koestler's own,not unreasonable speculation about the relationship of the Khazars to modernJewry (Dunlop doesn't go there). But whatever you, the reader, decide, youshould disregard those spewing hatred and vitriol with only the flimsiestundertanding of the Khazar-Jewish connection. Nor have I ever heard thatKoestler was murdered as some seem to have suggested, though I imaginepeople can say just about anything they want and seem plausible when thereis no one to contradict them.
 - Stuart W. Mirsky